Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Records Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses for records; board updates open‑records policy to add small per‑page and discovery fees
Summary
After a public comment from a resident who said the village had not produced requested violation records, the board approved changes to the open‑records request policy that set digital/print copy costs at 3¢ per page, a $5 fee for a USB transfer, and a $50 minimum discovery fee for staff time on large searches.
Salem Lakes — During public comment, resident Robert Ross said he had repeatedly sought records about property violations and a garage permit for more than a year and that many of his open‑records requests had been ignored or only partially answered. He asked the board to ensure the village complies with its open records obligations.
The board then considered a staff‑drafted update to the open records policy. Clerk staff explained the proposed changes: reduce or clarify per‑page charges by setting the paper copy cost at 3¢ per page when a physical copy is requested, charge $5 for delivering digital material on a USB drive when requested, and apply a $50 discovery fee for staff time when requests require substantial search time involving staff other than the lowest‑paid available employee. The clerk noted that statutory guidance does not permit charging for redaction time, which must be performed without an itemized charge to the requester.
Trustees asked how the discovery charge would be applied and were told the fee applies when searches exceed roughly two hours (the packet uses $50 as an initial threshold) and must be calculated using the lowest available hourly rate for staff who can perform the search; if IT or specialized staff are required, higher costs may be justified but must be explained in writing. The clerk said the policy and an updated request form also ask requesters to specify preferred delivery method (paper, email, USB) to speed responses.
A motion to adopt the updated open‑records request policy passed on board voice vote following a staff recommendation; the clerk said a final review by the village attorney was pending but she expected minor technical edits only.
Ending: Staff will publish the updated open records policy and the revised request form; the resident who spoke was asked to follow up with staff to ensure his outstanding requests are processed under the clarified policy.
